[Caml-list] "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Caml-list] "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Ashish Agarwal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 581 bytes --]

The following code compiles correctly:

----- a.ml -----
open Batteries
module Ord = struct type t=string let compare=compare end

module type S = sig
  include module type of Map.Make(Ord)
  (* include module type of Map.Make(Ord).Labels *)
end
-----

An easy workaround is to name the functor's result:

----- a.ml -----
open Batteries
module Ord = struct type t=string let compare=compare end

module M = Map.Make(Ord)

module type S = sig
  include module type of M
  include module type of M.Labels
end
-----

The above compiles correctly, but is this the best/only solution?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 981 bytes --]

[Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Ashish Agarwal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

I must've accidentally deleted part of my email before hitting send. The
point was to make the first code sample compile after removing the
commented line. But that is not allowed; I get a syntax error:

$ ocamlfind ocamlc -c -package batteries a.ml
File "a.ml", line 6, characters 38-39:
Error: Syntax error: 'end' expected
File "a.ml", line 4, characters 16-19:
Error: This 'sig' might be unmatched

I'm wondering if there is a better solution than my second code sample.


On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com>wrote:

> The following code compiles correctly:
>
> ----- a.ml -----
> open Batteries
> module Ord = struct type t=string let compare=compare end
>
> module type S = sig
>   include module type of Map.Make(Ord)
>   (* include module type of Map.Make(Ord).Labels *)
> end
> -----
>
> An easy workaround is to name the functor's result:
>
> ----- a.ml -----
> open Batteries
> module Ord = struct type t=string let compare=compare end
>
> module M = Map.Make(Ord)
>
> module type S = sig
>   include module type of M
>   include module type of M.Labels
> end
> -----
>
> The above compiles correctly, but is this the best/only solution?
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2057 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Hezekiah M. Carty]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com> wrote:
> I must've accidentally deleted part of my email before hitting send. The
> point was to make the first code sample compile after removing the commented
> line. But that is not allowed; I get a syntax error:
>
> $ ocamlfind ocamlc -c -package batteries a.ml
> File "a.ml", line 6, characters 38-39:
> Error: Syntax error: 'end' expected
> File "a.ml", line 4, characters 16-19:
> Error: This 'sig' might be unmatched
>
> I'm wondering if there is a better solution than my second code sample.
>

I use this quite often.  Your first example is close:

---- a.ml ----
open Batteries
module Ord = struct type t=string let compare=compare end

module type S = sig
  include module type of Map.Make(Ord)
  (* You do not need the Map.Make(Ord) prefix *)
  include module type of Labels
end
----

That works for me on OCaml 3.12.1 with Batteries 1.4.1.

Hez

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Milan Stanojević]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Hezekiah M. Carty <hez@0ok.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I must've accidentally deleted part of my email before hitting send. The
>> point was to make the first code sample compile after removing the commented
>> line. But that is not allowed; I get a syntax error:
>>
>> $ ocamlfind ocamlc -c -package batteries a.ml
>> File "a.ml", line 6, characters 38-39:
>> Error: Syntax error: 'end' expected
>> File "a.ml", line 4, characters 16-19:
>> Error: This 'sig' might be unmatched
>>
>> I'm wondering if there is a better solution than my second code sample.
>>

I would consider this a bug. I think than any module expression than
can be used with "include" should be usable with "include module type
of"

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Till Varoquaux]

2012/2/22 Milan Stanojević <milanst@gmail.com>d
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Hezekiah M. Carty <hez@0ok.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I must've accidentally deleted part of my email before hitting send. The
>>> point was to make the first code sample compile after removing the commented
>>> line. But that is not allowed; I get a syntax error:
>>>
>>> $ ocamlfind ocamlc -c -package batteries a.ml
>>> File "a.ml", line 6, characters 38-39:
>>> Error: Syntax error: 'end' expected
>>> File "a.ml", line 4, characters 16-19:
>>> Error: This 'sig' might be unmatched
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if there is a better solution than my second code sample.
>>>
>
> I would consider this a bug. I think than any module expression than
> can be used with "include" should be usable with "include module type
> of"
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>

Milan is right: the language grammar does say that both [include] and
[module type of] should work on module_expr. However, based upon the
manual(*),  [A(B)] and  [A.B] are syntacticly valid module_expr's but
[A(B).C] isn't. Is this because of an inherent limitation in the
module system?

[*]http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual019.html#module-expr

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Gabriel Scherer]

> [A(B)] and  [A.B] are syntacticly valid module_expr's but
> [A(B).C] isn't. Is this because of an inherent limitation in the
> module system?

I believe so. When you apply a functor, you may get fresh types as a
result -- the generative (abstract, algebraic) types of the functor
image. If you write `module M = A(B)`, the fresh types have a clear
identity: M.t, M.q etc; similarly if you pass A(B) to a functor with
formal parameter X, it is X.t, X.q etc. But if you write `module M =
A(B).C`, there is no syntactic way to name the fresh types generated
by the functor application; in particular, naming them A(B).t would be
incorrect -- because you could mix types of different applications.

For example, what would be the signature of A(B).C with:

  module B = struct end
  module A(X : sig end) = struct
    type t
    module C = struct type q = t end
  end

?

2012/2/22 Till Varoquaux <till@pps.jussieu.fr>:
> 2012/2/22 Milan Stanojević <milanst@gmail.com>d
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Hezekiah M. Carty <hez@0ok.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I must've accidentally deleted part of my email before hitting send. The
>>>> point was to make the first code sample compile after removing the commented
>>>> line. But that is not allowed; I get a syntax error:
>>>>
>>>> $ ocamlfind ocamlc -c -package batteries a.ml
>>>> File "a.ml", line 6, characters 38-39:
>>>> Error: Syntax error: 'end' expected
>>>> File "a.ml", line 4, characters 16-19:
>>>> Error: This 'sig' might be unmatched
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if there is a better solution than my second code sample.
>>>>
>>
>> I would consider this a bug. I think than any module expression than
>> can be used with "include" should be usable with "include module type
>> of"
>>
>> --
>> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
>> https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
>> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>>
>
> Milan is right: the language grammar does say that both [include] and
> [module type of] should work on module_expr. However, based upon the
> manual(*),  [A(B)] and  [A.B] are syntacticly valid module_expr's but
> [A(B).C] isn't. Is this because of an inherent limitation in the
> module system?
>
> [*]http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual019.html#module-expr
>
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Andreas Rossberg]

On Feb 22, 2012, at 18.24 h, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>> [A(B)] and  [A.B] are syntacticly valid module_expr's but
>> [A(B).C] isn't. Is this because of an inherent limitation in the
>> module system?
>
> I believe so. When you apply a functor, you may get fresh types as a
> result -- the generative (abstract, algebraic) types of the functor
> image. If you write `module M = A(B)`, the fresh types have a clear
> identity: M.t, M.q etc; similarly if you pass A(B) to a functor with
> formal parameter X, it is X.t, X.q etc. But if you write `module M =
> A(B).C`, there is no syntactic way to name the fresh types generated
> by the functor application; in particular, naming them A(B).t would be
> incorrect -- because you could mix types of different applications.
>
> For example, what would be the signature of A(B).C with:
>
>  module B = struct end
>  module A(X : sig end) = struct
>    type t
>    module C = struct type q = t end
>  end
>
> ?

Are you perhaps thinking of SML-style generative functors here?  
Because with Ocaml's applicative functors F(A) in fact always returns  
the same abstract types, and you _can_ actually refer to types via the  
notation F(A).t ;-)

/Andreas

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Jacques Garrigue]

On 2012/02/23, at 3:49, Andreas Rossberg wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2012, at 18.24 h, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>>> [A(B)] and  [A.B] are syntacticly valid module_expr's but
>>> [A(B).C] isn't. Is this because of an inherent limitation in the
>>> module system?
>> 
>> I believe so. When you apply a functor, you may get fresh types as a
>> result -- the generative (abstract, algebraic) types of the functor
>> image. If you write `module M = A(B)`, the fresh types have a clear
>> identity: M.t, M.q etc; similarly if you pass A(B) to a functor with
>> formal parameter X, it is X.t, X.q etc. But if you write `module M =
>> A(B).C`, there is no syntactic way to name the fresh types generated
>> by the functor application; in particular, naming them A(B).t would be
>> incorrect -- because you could mix types of different applications.
>> 
>> For example, what would be the signature of A(B).C with:
>> 
>> module B = struct end
>> module A(X : sig end) = struct
>>   type t
>>   module C = struct type q = t end
>> end
>> 
>> ?
> 
> Are you perhaps thinking of SML-style generative functors here? Because with Ocaml's applicative functors F(A) in fact always returns the same abstract types, and you _can_ actually refer to types via the notation F(A).t ;-)

This is not strictly correct, because of the possibility of avoidance.
I.e. you are allowed to apply a functor to a structure rather than a path, and in that case the behavior of the functor becomes generative,
so the problem described by Gabriel really applies in that case.

Going back to the question of "module type of", it is currently implemented by typing the module expression in the usual way.
So extending it to a stronger form of module expression would require changing that, and introduce extra complexity.
Doable, but don't hold your breath...

Jacques Garrigue

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Gabriel Scherer]

Apologies for muddling the water here: I'm not a module system expert
(but working on it;) and my description was not technically accurate.
Thanks Andreas and Jacques for the correction.

In the meantime, here is a nicer workaround for you Ashish:

  (* instead of representing the signature of MapLabels below directly,
     we build a functor that returns the image signature *)
  module MAPLABELS (Ord : BatInterfaces.OrderedType) = struct
    module M = BatMap.Make(Ord)
    module type S = module type of M.Labels
  end

  module MapLabels = struct
    module Make (Ord : BatInterfaces.OrderedType) : MAPLABELS(Ord).S = struct
      module M = BatMap.Make(Ord)
      include M.Labels
    end
  end

  module Test = MapLabels.Make(String)
  module MS = BatMap.Make(String)
  (* Test.t and MS.t are compatible, thanks to applicative functors *)
  let test = Test.add ~key:"foo" ~data:1 MS.empty

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Jacques Garrigue
<garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> On 2012/02/23, at 3:49, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 2012, at 18.24 h, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>>>> [A(B)] and  [A.B] are syntacticly valid module_expr's but
>>>> [A(B).C] isn't. Is this because of an inherent limitation in the
>>>> module system?
>>>
>>> I believe so. When you apply a functor, you may get fresh types as a
>>> result -- the generative (abstract, algebraic) types of the functor
>>> image. If you write `module M = A(B)`, the fresh types have a clear
>>> identity: M.t, M.q etc; similarly if you pass A(B) to a functor with
>>> formal parameter X, it is X.t, X.q etc. But if you write `module M =
>>> A(B).C`, there is no syntactic way to name the fresh types generated
>>> by the functor application; in particular, naming them A(B).t would be
>>> incorrect -- because you could mix types of different applications.
>>>
>>> For example, what would be the signature of A(B).C with:
>>>
>>> module B = struct end
>>> module A(X : sig end) = struct
>>>   type t
>>>   module C = struct type q = t end
>>> end
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> Are you perhaps thinking of SML-style generative functors here? Because with Ocaml's applicative functors F(A) in fact always returns the same abstract types, and you _can_ actually refer to types via the notation F(A).t ;-)
>
> This is not strictly correct, because of the possibility of avoidance.
> I.e. you are allowed to apply a functor to a structure rather than a path, and in that case the behavior of the functor becomes generative,
> so the problem described by Gabriel really applies in that case.
>
> Going back to the question of "module type of", it is currently implemented by typing the module expression in the usual way.
> So extending it to a stronger form of module expression would require changing that, and introduce extra complexity.
> Doable, but don't hold your breath...
>
> Jacques Garrigue
>

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Ashish Agarwal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3111 bytes --]

Thanks for all the helpful replies.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Apologies for muddling the water here: I'm not a module system expert
> (but working on it;) and my description was not technically accurate.
> Thanks Andreas and Jacques for the correction.
>
> In the meantime, here is a nicer workaround for you Ashish:
>
>  (* instead of representing the signature of MapLabels below directly,
>     we build a functor that returns the image signature *)
>  module MAPLABELS (Ord : BatInterfaces.OrderedType) = struct
>    module M = BatMap.Make(Ord)
>    module type S = module type of M.Labels
>  end
>
>  module MapLabels = struct
>    module Make (Ord : BatInterfaces.OrderedType) : MAPLABELS(Ord).S =
> struct
>      module M = BatMap.Make(Ord)
>      include M.Labels
>    end
>  end
>
>  module Test = MapLabels.Make(String)
>  module MS = BatMap.Make(String)
>  (* Test.t and MS.t are compatible, thanks to applicative functors *)
>  let test = Test.add ~key:"foo" ~data:1 MS.empty
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Jacques Garrigue
> <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> > On 2012/02/23, at 3:49, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 22, 2012, at 18.24 h, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
> >>>> [A(B)] and  [A.B] are syntacticly valid module_expr's but
> >>>> [A(B).C] isn't. Is this because of an inherent limitation in the
> >>>> module system?
> >>>
> >>> I believe so. When you apply a functor, you may get fresh types as a
> >>> result -- the generative (abstract, algebraic) types of the functor
> >>> image. If you write `module M = A(B)`, the fresh types have a clear
> >>> identity: M.t, M.q etc; similarly if you pass A(B) to a functor with
> >>> formal parameter X, it is X.t, X.q etc. But if you write `module M =
> >>> A(B).C`, there is no syntactic way to name the fresh types generated
> >>> by the functor application; in particular, naming them A(B).t would be
> >>> incorrect -- because you could mix types of different applications.
> >>>
> >>> For example, what would be the signature of A(B).C with:
> >>>
> >>> module B = struct end
> >>> module A(X : sig end) = struct
> >>>   type t
> >>>   module C = struct type q = t end
> >>> end
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >>
> >> Are you perhaps thinking of SML-style generative functors here? Because
> with Ocaml's applicative functors F(A) in fact always returns the same
> abstract types, and you _can_ actually refer to types via the notation
> F(A).t ;-)
> >
> > This is not strictly correct, because of the possibility of avoidance.
> > I.e. you are allowed to apply a functor to a structure rather than a
> path, and in that case the behavior of the functor becomes generative,
> > so the problem described by Gabriel really applies in that case.
> >
> > Going back to the question of "module type of", it is currently
> implemented by typing the module expression in the usual way.
> > So extending it to a stronger form of module expression would require
> changing that, and introduce extra complexity.
> > Doable, but don't hold your breath...
> >
> > Jacques Garrigue
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3962 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Ashish Agarwal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2311 bytes --]

Here's an example I still don't know how to accomplish:

module Map = struct
  module Make (Ord : BatInterfaces.OrderedType) : sig
    include module type of BatMap.Make(Ord).Labels (* this line is invalid
*)
  end = struct
    include BatMap.Make(Ord)
    include Labels
  end
end

The idea is I only want "module type of Labels" for the functor's output,
but I need BatMap.Make(Ord) within the implementation (perhaps to implement
some other functions).

I thought I can simply replace the line "include BatMap.Make(Ord)" with
"open BatMap.Make(Ord)", and then not provide the explicit signature. But
"open BatMap.Make(Ord)" gives a syntax error.


2012/2/22 Till Varoquaux <till@pps.jussieu.fr>

> 2012/2/22 Milan Stanojević <milanst@gmail.com>d
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Hezekiah M. Carty <hez@0ok.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I must've accidentally deleted part of my email before hitting send.
> The
> >>> point was to make the first code sample compile after removing the
> commented
> >>> line. But that is not allowed; I get a syntax error:
> >>>
> >>> $ ocamlfind ocamlc -c -package batteries a.ml
> >>> File "a.ml", line 6, characters 38-39:
> >>> Error: Syntax error: 'end' expected
> >>> File "a.ml", line 4, characters 16-19:
> >>> Error: This 'sig' might be unmatched
> >>>
> >>> I'm wondering if there is a better solution than my second code sample.
> >>>
> >
> > I would consider this a bug. I think than any module expression than
> > can be used with "include" should be usable with "include module type
> > of"
> >
> > --
> > Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> > https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
> > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> >
>
> Milan is right: the language grammar does say that both [include] and
> [module type of] should work on module_expr. However, based upon the
> manual(*),  [A(B)] and  [A.B] are syntacticly valid module_expr's but
> [A(B).C] isn't. Is this because of an inherent limitation in the
> module system?
>
> [*]http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual019.html#module-expr
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3711 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] Re: "module type of" on sub-module of functor result

[Gabriel Scherer]

You could use the following work-around, which introduces an
additional layer to have some space to name the functor application:
  module Map = struct
    module Make (Ord : BatInterfaces.OrderedType) = struct
      module M = BatMap.Make(Ord)
      module Result : module type of M.Labels = struct
        include M.Labels
      end
    end
  end

I suppose that may not suit your need -- you probably want to mimic an
existing hierarchy without changing it -- but it's difficult to do
better with such a reduced example, where you don't even need the
signature anyway.


2012/2/22 Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com>:
> Here's an example I still don't know how to accomplish:
>
> module Map = struct
>   module Make (Ord : BatInterfaces.OrderedType) : sig
>     include module type of BatMap.Make(Ord).Labels (* this line is invalid
> *)
>   end = struct
>     include BatMap.Make(Ord)
>     include Labels
>   end
> end
>
> The idea is I only want "module type of Labels" for the functor's output,
> but I need BatMap.Make(Ord) within the implementation (perhaps to implement
> some other functions).
>
> I thought I can simply replace the line "include BatMap.Make(Ord)" with
> "open BatMap.Make(Ord)", and then not provide the explicit signature. But
> "open BatMap.Make(Ord)" gives a syntax error.
>
>
> 2012/2/22 Till Varoquaux <till@pps.jussieu.fr>
>>
>> 2012/2/22 Milan Stanojević <milanst@gmail.com>d
>> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Hezekiah M. Carty <hez@0ok.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> I must've accidentally deleted part of my email before hitting send.
>> >>> The
>> >>> point was to make the first code sample compile after removing the
>> >>> commented
>> >>> line. But that is not allowed; I get a syntax error:
>> >>>
>> >>> $ ocamlfind ocamlc -c -package batteries a.ml
>> >>> File "a.ml", line 6, characters 38-39:
>> >>> Error: Syntax error: 'end' expected
>> >>> File "a.ml", line 4, characters 16-19:
>> >>> Error: This 'sig' might be unmatched
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm wondering if there is a better solution than my second code
>> >>> sample.
>> >>>
>> >
>> > I would consider this a bug. I think than any module expression than
>> > can be used with "include" should be usable with "include module type
>> > of"
>> >
>> > --
>> > Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
>> > https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
>> > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>> > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>> >
>>
>> Milan is right: the language grammar does say that both [include] and
>> [module type of] should work on module_expr. However, based upon the
>> manual(*),  [A(B)] and  [A.B] are syntacticly valid module_expr's but
>> [A(B).C] isn't. Is this because of an inherent limitation in the
>> module system?
>>
>> [*]http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual019.html#module-expr
>
>